Desicritics Author: Sandeep Bansal

Why Do Political Dynasties Flourish?

Sandeep Bansal — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:19:02 EDT

I came across a nice article on the Political Dynasties around the world. While in India, we may sulk about how our Politics has been captured by a few dynasties who continue to rule us, this isn't a unique phenomenon in India alone.

George W. Bush got elected as president eight years after his father left the White House. This is the second instance of American history of a father-son presidency. Kennedys remain as the most famous Western political dynasty.
Former U.S. vice president Al Gore’s father was a senator, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's son was a Cabinet official under Clinton and campaign manager for Gore. Teamsters Union president Jimmy Hoffa's son is now filling his father's shoes in the same slot.
Makiko Tanaka inducted as Japan's foreign minister some 25 years after her father was premier.
In North Korea after the death of President Kim Il-Sung, his son Kim Jong-Il became his successor in 1994, thereby creating the communist world's first dynasty.
After the death of Syria's President Hafez al Assad, his son Bashar became his successor.
South Asia has proved the most fertile ground for political dynasties. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal all have a resilient tradition of electing dynasties to the top office. Take Nepal, for instance. After the recent massacre of the entire royal family, the king's brother took over. Prime Minister G.P. Koirala's two other brothers were prime ministers as well — the only instance of three brothers serving in such high elective office. Sri Lanka started its tradition in 1960 when Prime Minister Solomon Bandranaike's widow, Sirimavo Bandranaike, became prime minister. Now her daughter, Chandrika Kumaratunga, is president. Bangladesh will see the coming electoral contest between two iron-willed women, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, daughter of President Mujibur Rahman, and Khaleda Zia, widow of President Ziaur Rahman.
India's Nehru family is probably the world's oldest democratic dynasty, now spanning four generations, producing the only team of grandfather-daughter-grandson prime ministers, ruling for 37 of India's 53 years as an independent state.
In Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was prime minister during 1971- 1977, and his daughter Benazir was elected for two stints as prime minister during the 1990s, the first woman from a Muslim state to head a government.
In the Philippines too, dynastic politics is quite widespread -- President Gloria Macapagal is daughter of a president, and political dynasties dominate local politics so much that there have been demands for laws against these dynasties.

Even in India, its not just the Congress that has been indulging in dynastic politics. Omar Abdullah is just 38 but he became the Chief Minister even though there are many senior leaders in the party. Similarly, elsewhere Karunanidhi has been grooming his younger son Stalin, the Patnnaiks in Orissa, Shiv Sena, Dev Gowda's JD(S), RJD in Bihar are no different. Even in BJP, son's and daughters of several leaders like Jaswant Singh, Vasundhra Raje Scindhia, Yedurappa and Pramod Mahajan are being promoted. In Congress, besides the Gandhi dynasty there is the Sandeep Dikshit, son of Shiela Dikshit; Ashok Chavan, son of late SB Chavan;Deepender Singh Hooda son of Bhupinder Singh Hooda. The list goes on.

The three reasons for this that were given in the article were:

Money
Political connections
Public recognition and thus easy Acceptability from the public

Access to the political system in most countries is costly in terms of money and only those who can afford the time, money, resources and have the requisite connections find an entry into what is often an exclusive if not closed club. Political lineage buttressed by money helps facilitate that entry.Bush, Gore, Tanaka, Macapagal-Arroyo fit the bill for what can be termed as politicians from Establishment families, with enough credentials due to a famous political surname to ensure a place on the political pedestal.

Then there are those who are respected for rendering services to their country during crucial periods, such as an independence struggle — hence, their legitimacy is unquestioned and widely accepted. The Nehru family in India, Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, Megawati Sukarnoputri in Indonesia, Hafez al Assad in Syria, Kim Il-Sung are some examples from this genre. Finally, there are those whose leadership is etched in the popular imagination, and for people to identify with such a charismatic leader comes almost automatically.

Bhutto, Bandranaike, Peron of Argentina, Ziaur Rahman and Mujibur Rahman in Bangladesh, the Kennedys in the United States all were populists with charisma, which is then sometimes "transferred" to their scions and close relatives.

By and large, these reasons are logical. Moreover, these reasons not only explain why such a large number of political dynasties exist, but also explains why such a large number film stars and sport stars have made it to political offices. They satisfy two of the three conditions - Money and Public recognition.

South India is famous for its film stars turning into politicians and Chiru is the latest one to join that list. In north India, we have Shatrughan Sinha, Vinod Khanna. Rajesh Khanna, Dhamendra, Amitabh Bachan, Govinda, Sidhu, etc. Even in the US, we have Arnold who is now the Governor of California.

But there is a major difference between India and US. US has a presidential form of Govt. and hence the president is directly elected by the people. Moreover, his term is restricted to two. Also, there is complete inner party democracy in US. In India, the leader is elected by the elected representatives and there is no limit on the number of terms. This ensures the hold of dynasties. And if someone tries to raise the issue of dynasties, he/she is instantly thrown out. For example, Sharad Pawar was shown the door in Congress. Maran was also recalled as a Union minister by the Karunanidhi.

So unlike popular belief, dynastic politics isn't the real issue. The real issue is lack of inner party democracy. Dynasty and Movie/Sports stars shall continue to play major part in democracy everywhere, whether we like it or not.

How Should India Respond to the Attack on Pakistan?

Sandeep Bansal — Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:23:21 EST

Everyone – politicians, the media, or even common people on both sides of the border – revel in the pain of others. For the last two decades, Pakistan and its citizens have ridiculed India's claim that Pakistan was the epicenter of regional terrorism. Several Pakistani newspapers and websites have often ridiculed India's ambition of becoming a superpower. Surprisingly, very few of them have actually criticized their own Govt. and its achievements of the last 60 years. Even now, if you visit the homepage of Dawn, it has a link to an article titled India - not Shining, which ridicules the achievements of Slumdog Millionaire at the Oscars. Surely, even one of the most respected newspapers of the country feels it necessary to hit out at India rather than talk about the turmoil of their own country.

The Economist rightly puts it,

"IF PAKISTAN’S leaders had ever united against Islamist militancy as they have against India over the past three weeks, their country would not be the violent mess that it is. They are united against India because fulminating against India is more fun"

In such a scenario of extreme hatred and mistrust, it wasn't surprising at all when some sections in Pakistan blamed Indian agency RAW for these attacks. A minister in the Pakistani Govt. claimed that this was India's response for the Mumbai Attacks. Some Pakistani channels played Sonia Gandhi's recent election speech where she said that "Hum muhtodd jawaab denge"(We will give them an appropriate response). But how should India respond to these attacks in Pakistan. Do we also celebrate in the same manner as our neighbor has been doing for the last two decades or do we behave differently?

If 26/11 was termed as an attack on the very idea of India by P. Chidambaram, the latest attack on the Sri Lankan Cricketers is surely an attack on the whole of Pakistan. Pakistan is a country which has faced an identity crisis right from the very beginning. Pakistan neither has any history or any distinct culture of its own that unites its citizens as a nation. There are only two things that unite its people together - religion and cricket. Imran Khan once famously said that terrorists would never dare to target Cricketers. But even he has unfortunately been proved wrong.

Pakistan may provide ideal fodder for our politicians’ election speeches,but ideally, they should resist such temptations. The history of Pakistan suggests it is hatred for India that unites Pakistan. The only entity that has benefited from the 26/11 attacks is the Pakistani military. Now they could become even stronger and perhaps the stage is set for another coup. At such a time when the civilian government is struggling to manage the economy, containing extremists in Swat, and also facing the ire of lawyers and opposition, India just cannot allow democracy to fail in Pakistan.

It’s not just Pakistan that is the problem. India's other neighbors such as Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are also facing internal troubles and Nepal although stable for the moment is undergoing radical change. With trouble spots in our neighborhood, we cannot turn a blind eye towards them. Islamic Fundamentalism is on the rise even in India, particularly in certain districts of UP like Azamgarh. Though it is still restricted to small pockets, incidents like Babri Mosque and Godhra riots don't help the Indian democracy.

In hindsight, the UPA government’s. decision to resist war mongering and using coercive diplomacy to great effect is commendable. Going forward, India should strongly dismiss all suggestions that point to a foreign hand in the Lahore attacks. At the same time it should not make matters worse for the weak civilian govt. If possible, confidence should be built along the border so that Pakistan's armed forces can be deployed in larger number in the troubled areas of SWAT and NWFP and Pakistan cannot blame tensions with India for not deploying enough troops.

India should not forget that the latest attacks are not just going to affect cricket in Pakistan, but the entire sub-continent. Jacob Orab has already expressed his reservations on the IPL. The Asian Block is known to have been united for a long time now. It should be recalled that in 1996, when several teams refused to visit Sri Lanka due to security concerns, a joint Indo-Pak cricket team led by Azhar played a match with the Sri Lankans. Therefore it is in our own interests that the Asian block pushes for the return of cricket to Pakistan as soon as conditions return back to normal.

Perhaps the IPL would have to bear the immediate impact of these attacks. It will be nearly impossible to provide continuous security to eight teams each of almost 25 members plus the coaching and supports staff and umpires over a period of one month, at a time when the General Elections will be taking place. The Indian Government won't be willing to take any chances during the elections. Any attack on IPL would be raised by the opposition as a failure of the Govt. This is particularly the case after the Mumbai attacks and was visible when the Indian tour to Pakistan was canceled. The problem is that postponing IPL is not an option because then the IPL might interfere with the Future Tours Program and the foreign players might not be available.

India is going to host the Commonwealth Games next year. The security of the Games village and the visiting athletes and officials will be crucial. This will be an important milestone for India as the success of the Games might give India a future opportunity to host Olympics. The Games are also important because they offer India a great opportunity to showcase itself as a tourist destination with its heritage and culture. But without adequate security, this will not materialize.

Without ensuring regional stability, we cannot hope to remain as an attractive destination for FDI as India would continue to be labeled along with the rest of the troubled South Asia. It is therefore in India's own interest to take the lead and ensure stability in the region.

Analysing India's Defense Preparedness

Sandeep Bansal — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:42:21 EST

The tempers have risen in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks. The attacks brought a renewed attention to India's defense preparedness and capabilities. Even as I am writing this blog, Pakistan is expected to give its reply to the Indian dossier. As per the reports, there is nothing new in the reply and Pakistan is going to simply deny the Indian charges. Surely, the coercive diplomacy hasn't yielded any major results.

So what are the other options before India. According to the Asia Times Online article, the military option is certainly not there. Not just because of threat of Nuclear weapons but because of the lack of preparedness. In fact the article mentioned above claims that it was Indian Army that had backed out of a full scale. This isn't something new that we are hearing. India's last major military conflict was Kargil, about 10 years. Kargil review committee had also raised several questions. the Israeli Ambassador in New Delhi, Mark Sofer, has said that his country had assisted India in 'turning around' the situation during the 1999 Kargil war with Pakistan.

Kargil war was a narrow miss for India. It happened between May-July 1999. Had we not received Israel's support, the outcome wouldn't have been the same. Especially because winters were fast approaching and it would have been virtually impossible to continue with the conflict because enemy had an advantage of height. This would have given adequate time to the Pakistanis to build adequate defenses. Israel is surely a key ally for India, and it wasn't really a co-incidence that there were not too many harsh statements from Indian Govt in response to the Israeli invasion of Gaza.

If we look back at even earlier times, during the 1962 War, India did not fully use its air-power even though it was much more advanced than the Chinese and could have easily slowed their movements.

But have we really learned anything from the past and are we prepared for the future challenges? Sadly, the answer is a NO. India's defense modernization plan is stuck under red-tape and numerous delays. For example - Following the Bofors Gun scandal, no subsequent Govt. had the guts to acquire this gun even though it has proved its worth and was even instrumental during the Kargil conflict.The Arjun Tank, LCA and other important project with the DRDO are miles away from induction. Even the recent BrahMos missile failed its induction test.

India has historically depended on Russia for its arms supply. However, lately there has been blatant arm-twisting by the Russians on the Gorshkov and the LCA engines. It is therefore important for to move out from the Russian claws. The Russian weapon systems are no more cost effective, while their quality control and delivery schedules have always been unreliable.

India's defense spending recently fell below 2% of its GDP, far below 3-3.5% of GDP which is considered to be safe. This is much lower when compared to its neighbors such as China and Pakistan who spend close to 5% of their GDP on defense. China recently got the capability to shoot down spy satellites and also successfully sent a man to space. On the other hand, India's space program continues to largely civilian oriented. China has already build up a good road infrastructure along its borders with India and thus is in a much better prepared.

Turning attention to our internal security, the situation is once extremely bad. Naxalism continues to remain the biggest threat. But we are not tackling it politically. Chattisgarh will raise an elite commando unit on the lines of the Greyhounds(Source). But this wouldn't solve the real issues. The Bangladeshi refugee continue to remain a big security threat for us. Many of them have been in the country for almost 30 years and have even acquired voter cards. Unfortunately, this matter is being politicized by the so called secular forces. Most of the Bangladeshi refugee are Muslims and thus are steady vote bank for them. Other than BJP, none of the parties have really raised this issue. POTA which was brought in by the BJP was branded as anti-Muslim. Now the Congress Govt. has brought in a new anti-terror law, which not quite different from POTA.

I can understand that we are a developing nation and have only a limited budget when it comes to defense spending, but surely we can spend the money allocated to defense in a much more efficient manner. Moreover, at least on matters such as defense and internal security, our politicians should show some amount of consensus.

Negative Voting is Positive for India

Sandeep Bansal — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:02:51 EST

With a plethora of happenings in last week that included the Republic Day celebrations and Mangalore attacks on women, the Indian media has hardly covered the issue of negative voting. Considering that the general elections are just round the corner, it is both surprising and shameful that media hasn’t given the issue its due importance so far and has instead been concentrating on issues like moral policing. This is not to suggest that issue is not important but a 'negative vote' can bring about much larger changes in our society.

Govt. of India has dismissed the recent suggestion of the Election commission of India as a part of the proposed electoral reforms, to give a negative voting option in the Electronic voting machines. There is a petition filed by the People's Union for Civil Liberties(PUCL) in 2005, before the Supreme Court seeking implementation of the proposed reforms of ECI. Opposing this PIL, the Govt. has argued that unlike freedom of speech and expression, voting is just a statutory right. Govt. even goes on to say that such an option is not healthy for democracy. (Source)

What is negative voting?

Negative voting is a privilege that allows the voters to reject all the candidates that are in fray. As per the present provisions of the Indian Constitution, a voter who seeks vote for none any of the candidates has give this in writing to the presiding officer giving in the reasons for doing so. The problem with this is that it is against the concept of secret ballot. Moreover it is a little cumbersome. Hence, most of the educated youth disgruntled with the political system, prefer to enjoy a holiday at home on the Election Day.

In a way they are right. The falling standards of the politicians of India hardly offer any hope and option. We have the likes of Pappu Yadav, , Taslimuddin , Mohd. Shahbuddin and many more representing the electrorate. Sanjay Dutt, who has been convicted in the 1993 Mumbai Blasts, is going to fight election from Lucknow. He may have done a lot for poor; he may have become popular particularly after the Munnabhai, but the fact remains that he is responsible for the loss of several hundred lives.

In the just concluded in Kashmir, the voter turnout was over 60%. Is this an indication of the rejection of the demand of azaadi? If experts are to be believed, the answer is a blunt no. People of the state need electricity, jobs and water and that’s what they have voted. If there was an election that included a negative voting option, surely a large number of people would have used this option. The story of the rest of the country isn’t too much different with people hardly having any confidence in the system. Some of my friends from UP say tell me how every elections they have to decide who is the lesser evil between SP and the BSP.

In such a scenario, the negative voting option has the potential to bring about large scale changes to the overall political system just like the way RTI is bringing about changes in our bureaucracy. But Governments stand on this issue is pretty much on expected lines. All political parties have resisted any major electoral reforms. For example, there is no institutional method of political funding. The recent case where over 2 crores Rs. was missing from the BJP office. Yet, there wasn’t any police complaint registered by the party. It will be naive to suggest that BJP is the only party which uses unfair means to get political funding.

Entities around the world that include "None of the Above" on ballots as standard procedure include the U.S. state of Nevada (None of These Candidates), Ukraine (Against all), Spain (voto en blanco), France (vote blanc), Colombia (voto en blanco), the United States Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Florida affiliate of the American Patriot Party, and the Debian Project.Russia had such an option on its ballots (Against all) until it was abolished in 2006. (Source)

Our politicians may take great pride in calling India as the largest democracy; the same pride is however missing from the electorate. Please join me in signing of the online petition.

Eliminating Indo-Pak Tensions

Sandeep Bansal — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:43:38 EST

It’s now almost two months since the 26/11 attacks. There have words and comments made from both sides. Ever since the attacks, I have been active on Pakistani forums like pakspectator.com. One of the things that I have realized over this period is that there has been complete lack of acknowledgment of the problems that both sides face.

Pakistani public have shown a complete disregard for the huge anger of the Indians because of the Mumbai attacks. Indian public on the other hand hardly have any knowledge of the problems that Pakistan is facing today. I really doubt how many Indians know about the scale of problems in Swat, FATA and NWFP in Pakistan. Today Pakistan has lost control of almost the entire Swat area. Indian media has hardly covered these events.

The politicians on both sides know how to whip up nationalistic feeling by raising slogans and addressing rallies. This is quite an expected behavior from this animal. But one would have hoped for a better response from the media. It is people to people contact that can alleviate the mistrust among ordinary citizens in the long run. The cricket matches and bus-services brought people of two countries closer. Pakistanis are fond of our movies and soaps. Several Pakistani singers are now regularly working in Bollywood movies. A large number of Pakistani visit India regularly for medical reasons because lack of advanced medical facilities in their countries. It is quite unfortunate that the Cricket tour of Pakistan had to be cancelled. However, it better to postpone a tour and play in an environment where it promotes friendship rather than rivalry.

So what can be done to permanently eliminate the tension?

The media from both sides can really play an important role in this. The politicians on both sides would continue to arouse nationalistic feeling. Can the media on both sides come together? To start with lets say, there is a one-hour weekly show on CNN-IBN that is produced actually produced by the Dawn news. Vice-versa there is a one-hour weekly show on the Dawn news by CNN-IBN. Such an initiative would make people on each side more aware of the issues on the other side of the border and thus deny an opportunity to the politicians/military to raise nationalistic feelings. It could make an even greater impact if such an exchange would take place between a Pakistan-based-urdu news channel and an India-based-hindi news channel. It can further be followed up by columnists from both sides writing columns in each others newspapers. Recently there was an article in The Times of India about 10 myths that Indians have about Pakistan. They can be read from the following link.

A similar initiative was undertaken by two bloggers – one from each side. They decided to exchange emails about the developments after the Mumbai attacks, each one presenting his side of the story. Their blogs can be found on the following links Ahsan and Nitin. Unfortunately blogs and online forums is not a place that can shape public opinion on either side because of their limited reach. At present all we witness is mostly Pakistani politicians and diplomats on Indian news channels who say nothing but old rhetorics. Sometimes, Pakistani journalists do come to talk on shows. However, in such shows they merely answer questions put up by the Indian journalists. A full blown program produced by the media would allow them to present the story in their own way.

As an MBA student, I have been taught that if you remove the middle-man and bureaucracy, and instead empower people then you can improve the efficiency of the overall system. In this case, it is the media that can empower the people. I have been actively following The Dawn news for the past two weeks, and I have to say that it is one of the better and neutral channels of our neighbor. Their editorials are bold enough to criticize their government and even the military. Considering the kind of pressure that the Pakistani media works which includes the military, it is the responsibility of the Indian media to take the lead and start such initiatives. Ofcourse there are irresponsible channels and guests on both sides. Some of them include Zahid Hamid who keeps on blasting anti-India rhetoric on Pak-channels.

For the past two days, CNN-IBN has been continuously following up the story of Prime-minister’s health going into details of the surgery and why it is conducted. Is the man on the street worried about such details? Its time these channels realize that they need to do some real journalism and move beyond sensationalism. However, I hardly have any hope because just like our politicians, these news channels are completely hopeless too.

I don't believe that the issues between India and Pakistan can be solved overnight. I don't think even if the above initiative is undertaken, it is going to have any immediate impact. But in the long run, it is surely going to serve a purpose. The politician is hungry for votes. At the moment he can win them merely by raising tensions. Lets beat him on his own game. It people on each side are sensitive of the sufferings of the other, then he will be forced to make some substantial work rather than maintain status quo.

For all Indians, please do try and watch The Dawn News online via the link. Similarly I request my Paki friends to watch CNN-IBN online via the link. Comments are welcome.

Historical Turning Points in Kashmir

Sandeep Bansal — Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:51:39 EST

Kashmir remains at the core of the issues between India and Pakistan and it has once again come to focus with the recent Mumbai Blasts. It has remained an issue for the last 60 years. However, there have been three important events that took place in History; each of them could have changed the History of Kashmir. I am sure most of the Indians or Pakistanis would be unaware of any of them.

The First of them took place a few months before independence of the two countries. This was when the actual border was being drawn. The fundamental basis that was followed for this was the population of the region. So, Muslim dominated areas were given to Pakistan while India retained the Hindu and Sikh dominated areas. One interesting deviation from this rule was the case of Gurdaspur, a border district, now a part of Punjab (India) and is represented by Vinod Khanna. This district had a Muslim population of 50.5%. It was initially given to Pakistan. However, later on it was given to India to please the Sikhs. The Sikh had lost significant portion of their land to Pakistan. Amritsar was the holy city of the Sikhs. Gurdaspur would provide a buffer to Amritsar, which otherwise would be surrounded by Muslim-dominated areas. Moreover, by giving Gurdaspur to Pakistan would have also meant that Pakistanis could stop the river water supply to the Holy City. A lot of prominent Sikh religious places were already lost to Pakistan. Therefore, this was an important concession to be made.

Gurdaspur is an extremely strategic location. Of the three routes to Kashmir by land, two of them are in Pakistan while the third was through the district of Gurdaspur. The route from the Kangra side not that good. So if Gurdaspur had not been given, most probably Kashmir today would have been a part of Pakkistan. Indian troops in 1947-48 used the Gurdaspur route(via Pathankot) to enter the state.

Quite expectedly, there has been a lot of criticism of British for giving Gurdaspur to India. Allegations of bias have been made. However, almost of these allegations fail to mention the case of Chittagong Hill Tracts, which were given to Pakistan despite 97% non-Muslim population. The rationale of giving Chittagong Hill Tracts to Pakistan was to provide some buffer area to Chittagong (now in Bangladesh) a major city and port and also it was argued that its only approach was through Chittagong. Gurdaspur District had a slight Muslim majority, because Ahmadiyya community were counted as Muslims even though they had been declared non-Muslims by Muslim clergy (there was large concentration of Ahmediyas in that area because their spiritual centre Qadian is located in Gurdaspur district). (Source: Gurdaspur & Kashmir accession)

The Second incident occurred soon after independence. All princely states were given the option that could join either India or Pakistan, or become independent. However, becoming independent was not feasible for most as they were to small to survive. British Govt, India and Pakistan all agreed. By August 1947, three states Junagarh, Hyderabad and Kashmir were yet to sign the accession agreement. Junagarh and Hyderabad were Hindu majority states with a Muslim ruler which in case of Kashmir it was the reverse.

The ruler of Junagarh dis-regarding the viewpoint of his subjects decided to accede to Pakistan. The Indian government did not accept the decision. Junagarh was surrounded by India on three sides with Arabian Sea on the fourth. It was 300 miles away from the Pakistan mainland. Govt. of India blockaded Junagadh and then invaded it. Delhi then imposed a plebiscite and secured the result it desired: Junagadh became part of India.

In Hyderabad’s case, it was surrounded by India on all sides. The ruler wanted to accede to Pakistan. Having hostile country right in the heart of India was not acceptable. For Kashmir , it was possible for it accede to either India or Pakistan. When Liaquat Ali Khan met Nehru at the end of November (while the Junagarh was being invaded) he exposed the illogicality of India's position. If Junagadh, despite its Muslim rulers' accession to Pakistan, belonged to India because of its Hindu majority, then Kashmir surely belonged to Pakistan. When Liaquat Ali Kahn made this incontrovertible point his Indian interlocutor, Sardar Patel, could not contain himself and burst out: 'Why do you compare Junagadh with Kashmir? Talk of Hyderabad and Kashmir and we could reach agreement.' However, Jinnah was thinking in terms of legally possible options rather than political realities. In the long term the independence of Hyderabad, while constitutionally proper, was never going to happen. The new Indian leadership saw the issue clearly enough and when the Nizam tried to strike a deal which would allow him to hang on to some degree of autonomy, Delhi flatly refused to consider the idea. Source: Hyderabad and Junagadh at Partition

Had Jinnah accepted the deal, it would have meant, Kashmir would have been a part of Pakistan.

The Third incident occurred after Kashmir was invaded by Pakistan. Kashmir’s Maharaj had not joined either with India or with Pakistan. After the partition most of the armed forces went to India. As a result Pakistan sent irregular tribal militia to invade Kashmir. After a substantial portion was captured by the Pakistanis, the Maharaja signed the accession document. After this, the Indian Govt. sent its troops to capture back Kashmir. Indian forces were easily defeating the militia. However, Nehru withdrew the operation and announced on radio that he would hold a plebiscite under UN supervision. This left Sardar Patel fuming. But, Nehru was someone who rather than being a pragmatic wanted to establish himself as a statesmen in the international community. He later went on to form NAM. One of his other major blunders was to mishandling of the Chinese that led to a humiliating defeat for the country.

In short both Jinnah and Nehru had the opportunity to avoid the situation that we are presently in. What is interesting to note that both of them are still widely respected in their respective countries. The Nehru-Gandhi family is perhaps even bigger brand than Mahatma Gandhi(Father of the Nation) as more number of Public schemes, buildings, airports and Hospitals in their name than of Mahatma Gandhi.

References:

1. Jinnah and Kashmir

A Wednesday - Mumbai, Politics & Life Imitiating Art

Sandeep Bansal — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:00:08 EST

A Wednesday, a recently released Bollywood movie was a fictional story where in an average Mumbaikar, takes revenge for the Mumbai serial train blasts. Ever since watching that movie, I had a feeling somewhere from within that the next attack would happen on a Wednesday. It might well be a co-incidence that the latest attacks on Mumbai happened on a Wednesday.

I am writing this article even as the rescue operations still continue after over 48 hours since the attacks first began. These attacks are perhaps the biggest ever attacks, ever bigger than the 1993 attacks. This attack raises important questions on our security establishment:

• Terrorists used loopholes in India’s coastal security which were not plugged even after 1993 attacks.

• The political leadership was indecisive and NSG was called in very late. This delay would have allowed the terrorists to take proper positions at the hotels.

• Further time was lost in briefing of the commandos about the internal layout of the hotels.

• Initial reports claimed the number of terrorists to be between 25 and 30. However, adding up the terrorists killed so far and those holed up inside, the number is nowhere close to 25. So it seems that a lot of the terrorists managed to escape after creating mayhem in the hotels.

• Shivraj Patil’s mis-handling of the home ministry has been well documented. Another chapter to it was added when he accidentally helped the terrorists by giving prior information about the movement of the Commandos from Delhi.

• No Helicopters were used on Thursday. Opening up a second front could have speeded up the process as it would have easily diverted the terrorists’ attention that would have to fight on two fronts now.

• All this is quite reminiscent of the 1999 Kandahar hijacking where the terrorists were allowed to leave the country from the Amritsar airport.

• The Congress Govt in the last five years of its rule has done little to counter terrorism which meant that the attacks have more daring day by day.

• The Congress has always been keen to stick to its secular image. What is unfortunate is that being secular has lately meant tolerating everything what the minority community does even if it is against the larger interest of the country. So even if BJP raises the issue of terrorism, it is often labeled as communal by the so-called secularists (Congress and the Left)

• Bangladeshi refugees have continued to stay in the country and pose a grave danger to the country’s security. Many of them have even obtained voter id cards. The NDA did take some initiatives to fan out these illegal immigrants. But such issues of grave national importance have continuously been politicized. During the NDA regime several Left leaders raised the issue stating that only Muslims were being transported back to Bangladesh easily ignoring the fact that over 83% of the population of Bangladesh is constituted by Muslims.

• It has always opposed Uniform civil code and reforms in the Muslim society which are absolutely necessary to prevent any outburst by the Indian muslims who could become easy recruits for the Lashkar and Jaish.

• Even in the past it came under the pressure of the fundamentalist and India became the first country to ban Salman Rushdie.

At a time when Hindu fundamentalism is on the rise and has even managed to take shape of terrorism, it would be grossly naïve to ignore the Muslim extremism, which still remains a much bigger danger. However, the political leadership seems to be more interested in scoring brownie points and trying to equate both forms of terrorism. The so-called Hindu terrorists do not receive the kind of military support that Islamic militancy gets. There may a few mis-guided Hindu youth backed by some retired military officers. But this is still no match to the Islamic terrorism who have the audacity and the capability to carry out attacks of this scale like that in Mumbai.

The US after 9/11 attacks enacted ‘The Patriot Act’ to counter terrorism, an act that in some ways compromises with personal freedom but aims to keep US and its citizens safe. However in India with its diversity in religions, it is unlikely that such a consensus is possible. The BJP of course has been repeatedly demanding that POTA be brought back, which was repealed by the UPA soon after it came back to power. Merely bringing back POTA may not bring back peace.

As Vinod Sharma points out in his blog,

“Laloo Yadav, India's Railway Minister, has in fact, been openly calling LK Advani a terrorist. He himself was openly moving around accompanied by an Osama Bin Laden look-alike during the elections in Bihar to get Muslim votes.”

All this has happened just a couple of days before the Capital is set vote for the Assembly elections and the ruling party is bound to suffer heavy losses because of this. In my earlier article, I had said about the possibility of a Third Front govt. led by Mayawati. But that is all set to change with the events of the last three days. So far, the BJP has exercised restraint and not really started politicizing the issue, but it hard to say how long that would continue. The NDA could be a major beneficiary of these attacks and given the new political dynamics where in it has the momentum going into the polls. It is now quite likely that it may also be able to convince some of the regional parties who are yet align with any of the fronts.

It is often said that a week is a long time in politics, well it is still more than 3 months for the general elections and hence anything can happen. For now, its advantage BJP.

Who Will be the Next Prime Minister of India?

Sandeep Bansal — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:17:12 EST

With just 3-4 months left for the General Elections, the question as to who shall be the next Prime Minister is pertinent question to be asked.

So who are the possible candidates. BJP has named one of its founder leaders, L.K. Advani as its Prime Ministerial candidate. This may be his last shot at Prime Ministership given his age. Congress on the other hand will most probably fight the elections under the leadership ManMohan Singh given his recent success in driving the Nuclear Deal home.

However, in my opinion there is a third candidate, Mayawati, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, who has a realistic chance at becoming the Prime Minister. And more importantly, she knows it pretty well and has been actively working on it. I know the readers of this blog are bound to raise a few eyebrows. Some of my friends too objected with my choice when I told them of the possibility.

Here is the reason why I feel so. In 2007, Mayawati won absolute majority in UP, something that has not happened in over decade with a single party managing a majority. Uttar Pradesh is the largest state with respect to number of seats in Lok Sabha. The states has produced as many as eight Indian Prime Ministers. Out of the 85 Lok Sabha seats, it is quite likely that BSP may win about 55-60 seats, which is a huge number.

Left has already indicated that it is willing to consider a Third Front under Mayawati. The Left Front which has its govts. in Kerala and West Bengal should win atleast 40 out of 62 seats. This is conservative estimate acknowledging the Singur controversy in WB. So the Left-BSP combine should end up with around 100 seats. That leaves 442 seats.

Getting 272 out these 442 seats by either NDA or UPA is extremely unlikely considering that there are still many strong regional parties like AIADMK, Trinamol Congress and TDP that haven't aligned with any group. It must not be forgotten that all three parties are the states where anti-incubancy is likely to be a major factor and all three are expected to make huge gains.

All groups have been trying to woo these parties for sometime. Since, DMK is in UPA, AIADMK cannot be a part of UPA. Similarly, TDP cannot be a part of UPA while Trinamol Congress cannot be a part of the Third Front. All three parties in the past have been a part of NDA at some of time. However, they all have suffered because of BJP's communal image in the past and the Third alternative is a good option for them.

The NDA in the last fews months has managed to bring aboard a few allies, for example - AGP in Assam. However, Assam has only 14 Lok Sabha seats which WB, AP and TN have 42, 42 and 39 seats respectively. So even one of the three decides to go the Mayawati, she will be in a very strong position to dictate terms.

The coming months are very crucial and would decide who would become the next Prime Minister.